Relationship validation among items and attributes

References

• Embretson SE. The second century of ability testing: some predictions and speculations; 2001. Available from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG7.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tatsuoka KK. Rule space: an approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. J Educ Meas. 1983;20(4):345–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatsuoka KK. Cognitive assessment: an introduction to the rule space method. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Haertel EH. An application of latent class models to assessment data. Appl Psychol Meas. 1984;8(3):333–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighton JP, Gierl MJ, Hunka SM. The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: a variation on Tatsuoka's rule-space approach. J Educ Meas. 2004;41(3):205–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almond RG, DiBello LV, Moulder B, et al. Modeling diagnostic assessments with Bayesian networks. J Educ Meas. 2007;44(4):341–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almond RG, Mulder J, Hemat LA, et al. Bayesian Network models for local dependence among observable outcome variables. J Educ Behav Stat. 2009;34(34):491–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haertel EH. Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. J Educ Meas. 1989;26(4):301–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker BW, Sijtsma K. Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 2001;25(3):258–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre J. DINA model and parameter estimation: a didactic. J Educ Behav Stat. 2009;34(1):115–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templin JL, Henson RA. Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychol Methods. 2006;11(3):287–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartz SM. A bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: blending theory with practicality [Unpublished doctoral thesis,] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Roussos LA, Templin JL, Henson RA. Skills diagnosis using IRT-based latent class models. J Educ Meas. 2007;44(4):293–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp AA, Templin J. The effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and classification accuracy in the DINA model. Educ Psychol Meas. 2008;68(1):78–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu JC, Xu GJ, Ying ZL. Theory of the self-learning Q-matrix. Prepriint, arXiv: 1010.6120; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Liu JC, Xu GJ, Ying ZL. Data driven learning of Q matrix. Appl Psychol Meas. 2012;36(7):548–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu CY, Douglas J. A nonparametric approach to cognitive diagnosis by proximity to ideal response patterns. J Classif. 2013;30(2):225–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang R. Nonlinear penalized estimation of true Q-Matrix in cognitive diagnostic models [Unpublished doctoral thesis], Columbia University; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Chung M. Estimating the Q-matrix for cognitive diagnosis models in a Bayesian framework [Unpublished doctoral thesis], Columbia University; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Xu GJ, Zhang S. Identifiability of diagnostic classification models. Psychometrika. 2016;81(3):625–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu GJ, Shang ZR. Identifying latent structures in restricted latent class models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2018;113(523):1284–1295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre J, Douglas JA. Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika. 2004;69(3):333–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maris E. Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika. 1999;64(2):187–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, Association American Psychological, & National Council for Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Haberman SJ, Sinharay S, Chon KH. Assessing item fit for unidimensional item response theory models using residuals from estiamted item response functions. Psychometrika. 2013;78(3):417–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ankenmann RD. Goodness of fit and ability estimation in the graded response model [Unpublished doctoral thesis], University of Pittsburgh; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• McKinley RL, Mills CN. A comparison of several goodness-of-fit statistics. Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(1):49–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• du Toit, M. IRT from SSI: BILOG-MG, MULTILOG, PARSCALE, TESTFACT. Scientific Software International; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Orlando M, Thissen D. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2000;24(1):50–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre J. An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: development and applications. J Educ Meas. 2008;45(4):343–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu CY, Kohn HF. Consistency of cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: the DINO model and the DINA model revisited. Appl Psychol Meas. 2015;39(6):465–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCarlo LT. On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: the DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix. Appl Psychol Meas. 2011;35(1):8–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li HC. Estimation of Q-matrix for DINA model using the constrained generalized DINA framework [doctorial dissertation], Columbia University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Lim YS, Drasgow F. Nonparametric calibration of item-by-attribute matrix in cognitive diagnosis. Multivariate Behav Res. 2017;52(5):562–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mislevy RJ. Test theory reconceived. J Educ Meas. 1996;33(4):379–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terzi R, de la Torre J. An iterative method for empirically-based Q-matrix validation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2018;5(2):248–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang WY, Song LH, Ding SL, et al. An EM-based method for Q-matrix validation. Appl Psychol Meas. 2018;42(6):446–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCarlo LT. Recognizing uncertainty in the Q-matrix via a Bayesian extension of the DINA model. Appl Psychol Meas. 2012;36(6):447–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatsuoka KK. Caution indices based on item response theory. Psychometrika. 1984;49(1):95–110. doi:10.1007/BF02294208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre J, Douglas JA. Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: an analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika. 2008;73(4):595–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huo Y, de la Torre J. Estimating a cognitive diagnostic model for multiple strategies via the EM algorithm. Appl Psychol Meas. 2014;38(6):464–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone CA, Zhang B. Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: a comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. J Educ Meas. 2003;40(4):331–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu CY, Douglas JA, Li XD. Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: theory and applications. Psychometrika. 2009;74(4):633–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin C, Zhang L, Qiu D, et al. Model identification and Q-matrix incremental inference in cognitive diagnosis. Knowl Based Syst. 2015;86:66–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp AA. Feature selection for choosing and assembling measurement models: a building-block-based organization. International Journal of Testing. 2002;2(3-4):311–360.
   Google Scholar
• Yu X, Cheng Y. Data-driven Q-matrix validation using a residual-based statistic in cognitive diagnostic assessment. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2020. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar